1. I am an adult. I can drive as far as I want when I'm on my own time and my own dime and it's none of the DND's business.

2. You can't suck and blow at the same time. If you're going to say "members are on leave for their travel" then you can't, at the same time say "but they can only drive 500km." Well, the DND clearly can suck and blow at the same time but that's why it's a waste of $20 billion a year.

1. You cannot be ordered to take POMV. Period. If your chain of command wants you to take POMV, and you say no, it's up to them to find an alternative method (including rental).

2. This is a fine line, but it's an important distinction: if you chose to take POMV vice the preferred method of travel, then you "shall take one day’s paid leave, after the first day, for every 500 kilometres travelled."

Notice that it doesn't say "you must only drive 500km per day". Obviously, this implies that you should be driving only 500km per day, but the CAF isn't ordering you to. You're on leave, so do what you want, but the CAF is forcing you to take ample time to make safe decisions.

3. Weekend leave is considered paid leave, so long as you are actually getting paid (sorry, Class-A reservists, in most cases, although I have found a loophole). I fought this battle all the way up to DMCA and won. Of course the way this organization works, I'm sure that next week a different analyst at DMCA will provide the exact opposite answer to someone else...

1. You cannot be ordered to take POMV. Period. If your chain of command wants you to take POMV, and you say no, it's up to them to find an alternative method (including rental).

I’m aware of this. I’ve went against my pedantic nature and deliberately ignored the nuance as that fact has no impact on the discussion and I am trying to respond to 100 other points right now. You are “asked” to take POMV or told to take a rental, in either case, the CoC is limited to having you drive 500km/day for the purpose of restraining the CoC from bag-driving a member.

2. This is a fine line, but it's an important distinction: if you chose to take POMV vice the preferred method of travel, then you "shall take one day’s paid leave, after the first day, for every 500 kilometres travelled."

Notice that it doesn't say "you must only drive 500km per day". Obviously, this implies that you should be driving only 500km per day, but the CAF isn't ordering you to. You're on leave, so do what you want, but the CAF is forcing you to take ample time to make safe decisions.

I’ve already pointed this out. The principle remains the same, and the principle is “you are not an adult capable of making adult decisions, and therefore we can tell you how many days you need to drive.” The fact that they do not explicitly say “you can only drive 500km a day,” IMO, indicates they were probably told by a JAG that they couldn’t, so they just re-worded it to a roundabout manner (which is probably even more irritating). In this case, you are literally being told to forfeit compensation regardless. It’s nonsensical.

3. Weekend leave is considered paid leave, so long as you are actually getting paid (sorry, Class-A reservists, in most cases, although I have found a loophole). I fought this battle all the way up to DMCA and won. Of course the way this organization works, I'm sure that next week a different analyst at DMCA will provide the exact opposite answer to someone else...

Glad you won, whether it’s a poor policy applied correctly or a poor policy applied incorrectly, it’s still a poor policy. That only softens the blow (although I believe there are still places applying the policy that poorly). Regardless, even with weekends there are still cases where you are going to end up choosing between forfeiting annual leave or a reduced quality of life on your tasking. Edmonton to Borden, 7 days of leave req’d to go one-way. In 2 RCR we had guys getting boned all the time for taskings, we supported them as best we could but the CO can only give out 2 short and that's really the only flexibility he has to try and soften the blow of what is a piss poor policy.

Positive aspects of this policy1. “You can take the extra leave days and spend them at home, getting ready for your tasking if the 2 days of special weren’t enough.” This is not a result of this this policy… you could always request to take your own annual for this purpose if you so choose. So, value added? Nil.

2. “The crown’s liability is reduced.” This is false. If you are on duty and have only travelled 100km and get in an accident, the Crown is still vicariously liable. If you are not on duty, the Crown's liability is unchanged. So, value added? Nil.

3. “It “protects” the member.” No, it doesn’t. If the member is on annual leave and gets in an accident after driving only 100km, he’s not going to be successful in a VAC claim. You are asleep at the wheel if you think otherwise. Re: The very upsetting story of Capt Kim Fawcett… if the Crown fought 3 times against her now, then you and I are hooped if we get in an accident while on annual leave. So, value added? Nil.

Negative aspects of this policy

1. Members are treated as though they are not adults and can’t be allowed to decide for themselves how many days they need to drive any given distance.

2. Members choose between forfeiting compensation and proceeding on long taskings in crapholes with no vehicle (Reduced quality of life, increased expenses). In either case, the member is negatively affected.

Pretty clear that the sum of all parts of this policy is a negative overall effect, given that this policy results in *no* positives and definitely some negatives, in some cases some very strong negatives.

I`ve also never resented taking a few days of leave in exchange for the drive either, it gave me extra time at home or on location to get situated before the course/tasking began.

That’s as great for you as it is irrelevant. You have the option of requesting annual leave prior to your 2x special without this policy. Why should everyone else be forced to take annual leave they don’t need to take?

The main benefit of the 500km a day planning model is it encourages people to make smart driving choices. Most of us have likely done a 16+ hour driving day in the past, but they are generally unsafe and shouldn`t be encouraged as the norm when traveling. Working a 16 hour day for operational reasons isn`t the same as driving a 16 hour day because you didn`t want to use leave or spend money.

Are you my mom and dad? If that’s “the main benefit,” then thank you, because that is ******* *weak.*

People going on tasks for 5-6 months at a time shouldn’t be forced to choose between forfeiting compensation or a reduced quality of life / added expenses on the other end. Thanks though, next time the troops need help deciding what should go in their bagged lunch I’ll refer them to you.

What is “safe” and “worth it” is a judgement call. Last time I checked, every member of the CAF over the age of 18 is considered a competent adult and don’t need mom and dad to determine that for them. They can vote, they can sign on for unlimited liability, they can operate fighter jets, they can decide for themselves what is "safe" enough or what is "worth it."

Yes, 100%, it can. The CFIRP and the CFTDI are two completely different policies. We can easily accommodate both. And, even if we couldn't, we could fix it within the CFIRP on its own because we already give extra benefits / compensation / etc to people with dependents for certain things.

So yes, is it reasonable for someone with 3 young kids to need 500km/day. Absolutely. Does that mean members proceeding on a TD tasking should have to give up annual leave in exchange for taking their vehicle? I don't see how the two are related.

I have my 5 hour patch and I’m quite proud of it but would prefer to keep both feet on the ground. From my “vast” experience in that fish bowl I can say it does fly itself rather nicely. Doing the other things while flying is a different matter. It’s like driving 10 hours from Calgary to Winnipeg vs Calgary to Vancouver. You can pretty much zone out through the prairies while driving into the mountains requires more attention.

Except, in the Prairies you aren't sitting at 10,000 feet altitude. Flying at high altitude in a pressurized cabin isn't ground level. Sitting at 10,000 altitude has its own effect after X/XX hours.

No, it's not. The personal choice part has been taken out because we're trying to babysit.

Not completely - you still have a choice. Drive your car without the approval to do so. Nothing stopping you from doing that other than if you want to be claim your travel expenses. I have a few members that have opted to do that. You can also choice to take the required leave and drive as long as you want.

But here's the rub, in practice, public servants are simply asked "what do you want to do, fly or drive?" and the approving authority picks the method requested. They don't play the nickle and dime game that we do. So the public servants don't have to have this gripe, one because they get to choose and two because they don't get sent to isolated crapholes for months at a time.

People seem to be unable to differentiate between when the CoC tells you to take POMV / rental, and when you are asking to do. [/b][/i]

Telling you to take POMV is not an option. They can ask and if you agree leave is not required. Rental car they can tell but again leave is not required. Both options would have them covering all your travel expenses including meals, hotels, mileage/rental cost.

Plus, you're wrong. It doesn't matter if I get in an accident in the first 100km. The Crown would still be subject to a lawsuit if I was on duty. If I wasn't on duty (i.e. annual leave), then no, they wouldn't be. My law textbook is on the other side of the country but it's basic tort law, vicarious liability.

had to look back and yes I could have worded that better. The point was if they didn't have the 500km limit for your travel day which you are on duty for and you decided to drive 1000km.

Okay, wtf are you even talking about? Where is anyone suggesting if we drive on our annual leave we think it ought to be covered.

Perhaps you missed this part or took it to mean I only see things in this board: As for other things I see.

"they can decide for themselves what is "safe" enough or what is "worth it."

Yet despite all these regulations, policies and chains of command telling us all this we still have people getting injured in ways that shouldn't happen, equipment broken and kit lost because they decided they knew better what was safe and worth it.

Logged

“non-commissioned officer (NCO)” means a member holding the rank of sergeant or corporal.

Not completely - you still have a choice. Drive your car without the approval to do so. Nothing stopping you from doing that other than if you want to be claim your travel expenses. I have a few members that have opted to do that. You can also choice to take the required leave and drive as long as you want.

Uh huh. And that is sadly what many are resorting to. What an excellent mentality, just great leadership. Great "look after your people" instincts. Instead of fixing a shitty policy, just tell people to pick the lesser of the available evils and suck it up. And the lesser evil is "no support" option. Pretty sad when the "no support" option is better than the support currently offered under the policy. Why waste time writing a policy that doesn't frig the member we are about to send on a 5-6 month tasking.

Yet despite all these regulations, policies and chains of command telling us all this we still have people getting injured in ways that shouldn't happen, equipment broken and kit lost because they decided they knew better what was safe and worth it.

I spent five years in 2 RCR with more people driving back and forth to Petawawa/Meaford/others than I could possibly count. I had to have been there for literally over 1000 people going to Petawawa and back. I do no recall a single accident, certainly no grievous injuries. The CAF is a huge organization, will they happen? For sure they will. But are you really going to advocate treating everyone like a damn infant to avoid a risk that is essentially negligible. That's a babysitting mentality, full stop.

I can't help but think some people in this thread have clearly spent so long in the institution they're not capable of objectively criticizing it, and instead naturally revert to defending it.

-Sgt X has a TD to Y-Sgt will be on leave (weekend leave) within 500 km of Y the Sunday preceding-Sgt X claims the one day he is entitled through a cost comparison.

In practice: Sgt X drives to within 500 km of Y to he there sometimes on the Sunday and keeps driving to Y.

Yea that would work, this is one of the ways that the Class-A members get around the policy.

POMV travel from my unit to Halifax requires 4 days of travel. But, we can't tell a Class-A member what they can and can't do when they aren't on contract. So, if the Class-A tell sme that personal circumstance will result in them being in Fredericton the day before their course, and they would like us to arrange travel from there to Halifax(using POMV), who am I to argue? I don't ask why you're in Fredericton or what you're doing ther, but it's within 1 day's travel, so fill your boots.

Supersonic Max, cases that I don't think this would work, however, would be for extremely long distances.

If a soldier of mine was going from Edmonton to Borden for a 3 months course, and they didn't want to take annual leave, but said to me that between Friday night when they finish work, and Sunday morning, they will have travelled by POMV 2800km of the 3300km distance, and therefore would then be within 500km, I just can't see it as a safe decision to sign off on that plan. I would tell them no, CAL is the selected method, Sunday is your duty travel day, and you will report to Edmonton Airport for your flight; here's your ticket.

-Sgt X has a TD to Y-Sgt will be on leave (weekend leave) within 500 km of Y the Sunday preceding-Sgt X claims the one day he is entitled through a cost comparison.

In practice: Sgt X drives to within 500 km of Y to he there sometimes on the Sunday and keeps driving to Y.

In theory, this "works." In practice, is the Commanding Officer of every unit going to start doing this? Is Pte / Cpl / MCpl etc going to have the conversation we are now having, and appeal for reason, etc. I'm a Captain and while I intend to go this route soon, I already know I'll be hitting obstacles because people don't understand policy / don't think outside the box / apparently might agree with the babysitting aspect. (I'm also sure I'll run into the "well, I won't approve your weekend leave pass to be outside the local area."). How many lower ranks are going to have that fight?

If the policy is such that we need to circumvent it to come to some form of rational answer, it's a bad policy. If people are choosing "no support" over the support offered, that's probably some pretty shitty support.

Yea that would work, this is one of the ways that the Class-A members get around the policy.

POMV travel from my unit to Halifax requires 4 days of travel. But, we can't tell a Class-A member what they can and can't do when they aren't on contract. So, if the Class-A tell sme that personal circumstance will result in them being in Fredericton the day before their course, and they would like us to arrange travel from there to Halifax(using POMV), who am I to argue? I don't ask why you're in Fredericton or what you're doing ther, but it's within 1 day's travel, so fill your boots.

Supersonic Max, cases that I don't think this would work, however, would be for extremely long distances.

If a soldier of mine was going from Edmonton to Borden for a 3 months course, and they didn't want to take annual leave, but said to me that between Friday night when they finish work, and Sunday morning, they will have travelled by POMV 2800km of the 3300km distance, and therefore would then be within 500km, I just can't see it as a safe decision to sign off on that plan. I would tell them no, CAL is the selected method, Sunday is your duty travel day, and you will report to Edmonton Airport for your flight; here's your ticket.

That would require allowing the Chain of Command to use its discretion. Not only does the policy babysit everyone, it also points to a severe lack of trust in the judgement of COs.

If a soldier of mine was going from Edmonton to Borden and reporting on Monday, I'd probably support them getting a short day or two so they have adequate time after the 2x special to do the drive... 3 days is plenty of time to go 3300km. If not short, then annual... but I wouldn't demand they take 5 annual as the policy does (1 travel, 1 weekend, 5 annual) because that's just ridiculous. We may disagree slightly on use of short, etc, but that's a judgement call for a CO to make.... not TB / DCBA.

There is no reason the Crown can't allow for this and also "here's the $500 it costs to fly you there as well, since we would have had to pay that anyway."

This is true in many aspect of our policies and is a broader problem. Policies need some vagueness to them to allow COs to cater to different situations.

In the PMV case, it'd be a CoC's call to ensure their members' plan is safe and sound, and apply the policy with some discretions. I really dislike policies that not only tell you what to do but also how to do it...

Understand things look really different from the various view points. I have seen it where a little reserve group of about 20 felt that all the regulations coming out were aimed specifically at them. One thing some don't realize is that TB is not writing policy for the CAF. It is writing for every federal government employee in every department. No idea what current figures are but at one point it was around 200 departments and over 400k employees. CAF does not have the right to expand or give benefits to its members, if it does want to give something it must negotiate with TB and give up something that of course someone else would complain about so we mostly follow the NJC.

As for CofC and flexibility although I often wish there was more I am sure there are enough on here that can testify to various abuses over the years from those CofC that did have the flexibility. Off the top, CO's (LCols) ordering their staff to book them first/business class when they were not entitled to it and advised of it, FTUC staff at reserve units issued outlandish work schedules, refusing leave all year and then telling the members as they had not used it they lost it as leave is a privilege not an entitlement, do it or I will have you fired from your class b (doesn't work too well when the person is actually reg f), you will drive 700 kms to deliver this, return the next day for the parade night and no we don't care that there is snow in the mountains. Some of these I have seen within the last 4 years (yeah, after the CFTDI was released and they were briefed a few times on the mileage restriction).

The rules are tighter but not totally unworkable. Yes I miss the days of "hypothetical trip" claims and wish we could still do them as it was a lot easier than the cost comparison/leave crap but as it is my job to play within (or at least on the edge) of the rules I do it while complaining. There are some thing's that I wish more would complain about to the right people and even redress but so far haven't seen it happen in my area despite my attempts. Instead all I see is people complaining to and blaming the clerks as if they are the policy writer. Personally don't know any clerks that like these changes as it just made the job harder. Like a clerk would write a policy that all travel must be approved by the CO prior to travel. I for one was quite happy to approve it rather than bothering the CO that should have more important things to deal with. Sure the odd exceptional case but most claims are standard.

Lumbar: " I would tell them no, CAL is the selected method, Sunday is your duty travel day, and you will report to Edmonton Airport for your flight; here's your ticket."

Of course if they decided to drive anyway there really isn't anything anyone could do other than not give them their mileage and meals on the claim. I did give them flack for not cancelling the flight prior so that we were reimbursed instead of getting a credit that may not get used (they were linked to the name at the time).

Logged

“non-commissioned officer (NCO)” means a member holding the rank of sergeant or corporal.

In theory, this "works." In practice, is the Commanding Officer of every unit going to start doing this? Is Pte / Cpl / MCpl etc going to have the conversation we are now having, and appeal for reason, etc. I'm a Captain and while I intend to go this route soon, I already know I'll be hitting obstacles because people don't understand policy / don't think outside the box / apparently might agree with the babysitting aspect. (I'm also sure I'll run into the "well, I won't approve your weekend leave pass to be outside the local area."). How many lower ranks are going to have that fight?

What leave pass for normal weekend leave? My entire Wing...they're not used because the CFLPM states they are not required. Can/does the CAF tell me I am only allowed to travel 500km/day on a normal Saturday off? Or, if I put in for 2 wknd/1 ann leave day to travel "A to B and rtn", no one even considers how far I am driving because it is non-duty travel.

What leave pass for normal weekend leave? My entire Wing...they're not used because the CFLPM states they are not required. Can/does the CAF tell me I am only allowed to travel 500km/day on a normal Saturday off? Or, if I put in for 2 wknd/1 ann leave day to travel "A to B and rtn", no one even considers how far I am driving because it is non-duty travel.

For my CoC a weekend leave pass is only needed for staff if they leave the province, students on the other hand need one if the go further than Fredericton-Moncton-Saint John area.

Logged

CHIMO!First in, Last outSappers Lead the Way

Just tell your wife she owes your life to some Muddy Old Engineer,Some dusty, crusty, croaking, joking Muddy Old Engineer

This is from the CPM CFTDI faq Last revised 3/19/2018, this is for members requesting to travel PMV. Thinking this may be the part that is creating the annual leave issue as in the example used it would take some. Can't cover 8 days with short and weekend. :

I am currently posted to Vancouver, can I take my PMV if I need to go to Borden on course even if they are 4,296 Km apart?

Maybe. You will need to sign both the CFTDTI Annex A Member Request To Use PMV Acknowledgment of Limitations for the PMV Waiver and the DGCB/DCBA cost comparison worksheet when your intent is to request use of your PMV rather than a more economical and practical mode of transportation. You will be entitled to only the first day of travel to the destination (500 kilometres) and only for the first day of return travel (500 kilometres) kilometric rate for the direct road and this would include any distance traveled by ferry. You will also be required to utilize sufficient paid leave for each additional day of travel over 500 kilometres (duty travel day). In the interest of safe driving, you are required to take 8 paid leave days each way, in addition to the one day of duty travel each way. If youdon't have sufficient annual leave remaining, the CO has no choice but to deny PMV travel, in favour of the most economical and practical method of transportation (in this case, commercial air travel). PMV is not considered the most economical and practical method of transportation, except where the CO requests the use of PMV, IAW the CFTDTI.

NOTE: The Crown accepts no responsibility or liability to the member for, the loss of or damage to a PMV on duty travel and deductible insurance payments in respect of a PMV used on duty travel. As such, a member cannot be ordered and is never obliged to use a PMV for duty travel.

and for reservist:

I am a reservist on Class A service serving in Halifax and am going on TD to Borden and wish to take my PMV in lieu of the more economical and practical mode of transportation. Am I permitted to utilize my PMV in this case?

No. Not in this scenario based on distance to the location of TD. The preferred method of travel would be commercial air travel, and you would arrive and return within a few hours to your destination, hence one day duty travel each way. As kilometric travel is more than 500 km, a member requires paid leave during the non-duty travel days. Class A members are on duty status for the duration of their tasking, and that would be covered when travelling via the most economical and practical mode of transportation. Since paid leave is not factored in the structure of Class A Reserve service, reimbursement for the use of PMV is not authorized. If a Class A member still wishes to use their PMV for travel to the duty destination, there is no requirement to request a waiver of entitlements as there is no entitlement in lieu of the approving authority’s selected mode of transportation. You are choosing to travel at personal expense.

Had one case that was kind of the reverse of starting/ending TD at an alternate point. Class A mbr was travelling just within the limit for TD but had indicated as he was given a day off after his arrival he planned to go and visit his mother approximately 120 kms away. The clerk didn't want to do the claim as it was now over the daily limit. I had to step in and pointed out that what he did on his td was not our concern, it was between him and his supervisor. If they gave him a day off after he arrived then he could go wherever he wanted. He checked in on schedule, got dismissed and went on his way.

Logged

“non-commissioned officer (NCO)” means a member holding the rank of sergeant or corporal.

What leave pass for normal weekend leave? My entire Wing...they're not used because the CFLPM states they are not required. Can/does the CAF tell me I am only allowed to travel 500km/day on a normal Saturday off? Or, if I put in for 2 wknd/1 ann leave day to travel "A to B and rtn", no one even considers how far I am driving because it is non-duty travel.

Would really prefer if we didn't turn yet another thread into a argument about whether or not a weekend leave pass is required or not. I agree with you on weekend leave passes as was clear in the thread specifically about that topic, but the reality is, it is an obstacle I would run into, and so will most other people.

CAF does not have the right to expand or give benefits to its members, if it does want to give something it must negotiate with TB and give up something that of course someone else would complain about so we mostly follow the NJC.

The change I am proposing would not cost the taxpayer's an extra dime, so I'm not convinced it would need "negotiating."

I'll also point out that the original comment that started this was...

I sincerely hope the BS around POMVs (it's more than just the Class A stuff that's ridiculous on this issue) is near the top of this list of concerns being brought to the TB... but somehow I doubt it.

So I'm not sure why you're talking about how the CAF can't expand / change the benefits. I am simply remarking that I hope DCBA is bringing this issue up on our behalf to the TB. I am fully aware that CAF doesn't get to write its own policy.

As for CofC and flexibility although I often wish there was more I am sure there are enough on here that can testify to various abuses over the years from those CofC that did have the flexibility. Off the top, CO's (LCols) ordering their staff to book them first/business class when they were not entitled to it and advised of it, FTUC staff at reserve units issued outlandish work schedules, refusing leave all year and then telling the members as they had not used it they lost it as leave is a privilege not an entitlement, do it or I will have you fired from your class b (doesn't work too well when the person is actually reg f), you will drive 700 kms to deliver this, return the next day for the parade night and no we don't care that there is snow in the mountains. Some of these I have seen within the last 4 years (yeah, after the CFTDI was released and they were briefed a few times on the mileage restriction).

Almost all of those are issues of accountability (not policy flexibility) which the CAF is terrible at and I could start a whole other thread about that issue. But I don't see how that applies to this particular problem. There is no way to abuse the policy wording I am suggesting, it can only help the member. If the CO tried to screw someone around, the member can just withdraw their request to take their own POMV.

Lumbar: " I would tell them no, CAL is the selected method, Sunday is your duty travel day, and you will report to Edmonton Airport for your flight; here's your ticket."

Of course if they decided to drive anyway there really isn't anything anyone could do other than not give them their mileage and meals on the claim. I did give them flack for not cancelling the flight prior so that we were reimbursed instead of getting a credit that may not get used (they were linked to the name at the time).

If they don't show up to where they are supposed to be, at the time they are supposed to be there, they're AWOL. Plus they would have disobeyed a lawful command. There are remedial measures available as well. There is plenty that can be done to deal with this, this goes back to the accountability issue. Obviously this happened to you, did you recommend any of these things?

Would really prefer if we didn't turn yet another thread into a argument about whether or not a weekend leave pass is required or not. I agree with you on weekend leave passes as was clear in the thread specifically about that topic, but the reality is, it is an obstacle I would run into, and so will most other people.

The more important part of my point was intended around the "can the CAF tell me how far I can drive on a normal weekend off or during Annual Leave?

The answer is no, of course, because it is non-duty travel. Any injuries, etc are not related to duty. So why is it different if I am travelling from Point A to Point B and using Annual Leave days?? If I am on Ann Leave I am not on duty travel, and that is what this ****** stupid policy basically ends up doing; telling the mbr what they can do on their own time.

End of the day, its a shitty policy that has yet to be defended well to justify it.

The more important part of my point was intended around the "can the CAF tell me how far I can drive on a normal weekend off or during Annual Leave?

The answer is no, of course, because it is non-duty travel. Any injuries, etc are not related to duty. So why is it different if I am travelling from Point A to Point B and using Annual Leave days?? If I am on Ann Leave I am not on duty travel, and that is what this ****** stupid policy basically ends up doing; telling the mbr what they can do on their own time.

End of the day, its a shitty policy that has yet to be defended well to justify it.

Ah sorry then... Yes, as I said, the policy is literally trying to suck and blow at the same time. "You're on your own time and your own dime, but you must take enough of your own time, using your own dime, as would be req'd if you were on duty.... but you're free to use the leave however you want instead of driving, aren't we generous?"

The effect is that you're basically forfeiting heaps of compensation in return for "500km*mileage rate."

It seems stupid, but the CAF doesn't want to be liable if you get in an accident for driving for too long a one time, and I fully understand that and reall don't have an issue with it.

Now, should it be 500km per day? No, I think 800km is more reasonable.

Groovy. Now, explain to me how this DOESN'T apply to leave such as Annual, Special or Short. Does the CAF not 'want to be liable" then too? Because, if I am on Ann Leave as part of travel from my normal place of duty to TD/AP on course, etc...I'm still...on Annual Leave, let's say. If I am on leave, I am not on duty. if I am not on duty, how can the CAF be liable?

Let's just face it here; it is a stupid policy that needs to be challenged and removed.

It seems stupid, but the CAF doesn't want to be liable if you get in an accident for driving for too long a one time, and I fully understand that and reall don't have an issue with it.

And if I am on annual leave, they are not liable. So you don't have an issue with a policy that screws the member based on a completely false idea that it somehow absolves the CAF of liability that they never had to worry about to begin with?

It seems stupid because it is stupid, and it's just blatantly not true. Next we'll be trying to tell members they can't travel from Fredericton to Ottawa for the long weekend without 5 days of leave because they need two days to get there and two days to get back "or else the CAF will be liable if you get in an accident on your way home." "We're not saying you need to drive it over 2 days by the way, just that you need to take a minimum of 5 days of leave for the trip. We're reasonable like that."

And if I am on annual leave, they are not liable. So you don't have an issue with a policy that screws the member based on a completely false idea that it somehow absolves the CAF of liability that they never had t 7o worry about to begin with?

This has nothing to do with annual slave or the annual leave policy. This is about travel policy. The CAF isn't dodging liability for each individual trip, they are dodging liability for the entire travel policy.

If we instead had a policy that allowed CO's the discretion to order their members to travel whatever distance they wanted, you would undoubtedly, eventually, end up with numerous cases of CO's abusing their authority and order ing members to drive unreasonable distances. You'd have accidents, you'd have lawsuits.

The only way the CAF can absolve themselves of this potential liability is they have to take away that authority from the CO. Problem is, the only way to do THAT is to take away the ability of EVERYONE to make that judgment call.

Further, your example of travel from Fredericton to Ottawa is flawed, or at least, it's like you're stating facts that make my argument, not your own. If ever a member was required by tasking/cftpo to be in Ottawa for the weekend, they would provide them with a method of travel appropriate to the circumstance. If for whatever reason they felt pomv was appropriate, or, If the member requested to use it, they would need to ensure he has at least 2(3?) days to make the drive.

Why would the CAF either order, request, or allow the member the ability to drive an unsafe distance, when CAL is an option. The safe driving distance for every person is different, and the CAF isn't going to allow each member to "declare" THEIR safe driving stance, so a standard must be set. It's set at 500. Which is dumb.

If we instead had a policy that allowed CO's the discretion to order their members to travel whatever distance they wanted, you would undoubtedly, eventually, end up with numerous cases of CO's abusing their authority and order ing members to drive unreasonable distances. You'd have accidents, you'd have lawsuits.

Are we even having the same conversation? We're talking about when a member requests to use their POMV, and you're talking about when the CO selects POMV as the preferred method.

The issue you are describing is *not relevant* to the case when a member is asking to drive his POMV *during his (insert type here) leave.*

We are *not* talking about lifting the restriction placed upon the CoC when they select POMV or rental as the preferred mode if travel. I agree 800km in this case would be more reasonable than 500km, but that's not what we're even discussing.

Further, your example of travel from Fredericton to Ottawa is flawed, or at least, it's like you're stating facts that make my argument, not your own. If ever a member was required by tasking/cftpo to be in Ottawa for the weekend, they would provide them with a method of travel appropriate to the circumstance. If for whatever reason they felt pomv was appropriate, or, If the member requested to use it, they would need to ensure he has at least 2(3?) days to make the drive.

You're really not tracking the example put forth. I'm not talking about a tasking. I'm talking about if a member wants to travel to Ottawa for, I dunno, a Senators game on Saturday night. It's a long weekend. He plans to drive on Friday, and drive on Sunday.

If the CAF can tell a member they need to take 7 leave days to drive from Edmonton to Borden for a tasking "or else the CAF could be liable for an accident that you get into while you are on leave," the next logical step is that the CAF can tell people they can't drive Fredericton to Ottawa on a long weekend without taking 5 days leave (2 days travel, 1 day leisure, 2 days travel) "or else the CAF could be liable for an accident that you get into while you are on leave." That is literally the same logic, and it's based on a BS reason.*

Demanding that a member who is a requesting to use POMV take 7 days of leave to drive from Edmonton to Borden for a tasking is no different then demanding a member who wants to go to Ottawa for a Sens game take 5 days of leave "or else the CAF will be liable."

*Its simply not true. The CAF is not going to be liable for a member that gets in an accident while on leave. So it would be just great if you would stop repeating that falsehood.

Demanding that a member who is a requesting to use POMV take 7 days of leave to drive from Edmonton to Borden for a tasking is no different then demanding a member who wants to go to Ottawa for a Sens game take 5 days of leave "or else the CAF will be liable."

It is different though, if you decide that after driving from Gagetown to Quebec city that you are too tired to continue to Ottawa for the game it's not the CAF's problem. Get back to work on time on Monday, and the CAF couldn't care less about whether or not you saw the Sens lose live or on TV. If you fail to arrive on time for a tasking or course because you failed to plan properly and take enough time it is the CAF's problem. Either the work you were required to do isn't getting done, or the course training billet is wasted on a late/no show student. Therefore it's in the CAF's interest to ensure you have enough time to make the journey in a safe timeframe.

It is different though, if you decide that after driving from Gagetown to Quebec city that you are too tired to continue to Ottawa for the game it's not the CAF's problem. Get back to work on time on Monday, and the CAF couldn't care less about whether or not you saw the Sens lose live or on TV. If you fail to arrive on time for a tasking or course because you failed to plan properly and take enough time it is the CAF's problem. Either the work you were required to do isn't getting done, or the course training billet is wasted on a late/no show student. Therefore it's in the CAF's interest to ensure you have enough time to make the journey in a safe timeframe.

You can make the exact same argument for getting back from the Sens game for work at 0800 on Monday morning... and your tasks on Monday morning could be to fly a plane, command a combat team in a live fire level 5 range, or be a Course O / staff / candidate on any number of in-house courses run at your unit or another local unit...

You can make the exact same argument for getting back from the Sens game for work at 0800 on Monday morning... and your tasks on Monday morning could be to fly a plane, command a combat team in a live fire level 5 range, or be a Course O / staff / candidate on any number of in-house courses run at your unit or another local unit...

So no, it is absolutely not different.

It is different, because the CAF didn't tell you you need to be in Ottawa at 1900 Saturday and back in Gagetown at 0800 Monday morning. When you ask permission to not travel commercial to attend a course/task the CAF is still telling you to be somewhere at a specific time. That makes it the CAF's business how you manage to accomplish that travel (itinerary), and it makes it their business to make sure you have enough time to do it.

Should the distance be longer than 500km? I think so. Should it be a free for all with people driving across the continent in three days? I don't think so, but I'm sure someone will be along shortly to let me know why it's not only possible but safe and cost effective...